Approximately 235% of our GNP

[thomdd1959]

Hi I'm Tom, I receieved a google alert about a federal reserve article on this site which led me to another site to post. You people are all geeks, I was a stoner and used to attend your chess clubs in high school 35 years ago and win every game. Alright, I have a question for you, this is completly different then my usual post. But you are unusual! Just kidding, I hope you know that! Thomas D. Dowling http://www.tomdavidd.com/blog/ tomdavidd@gmail.com

 

August 06, 2009

 

Here's a chart put together of our country's Gross National Product vs. our Total National Debt over the past 15 years.

 

There is one slight problem with this chart. The current National Debt numbers only include about $2 trillion of the total estimated $23.7 trillion dollar cost of the bailout.

 

So, in actuality we are looking at a National Debt of over $33 trillion sometime in the next year or two. This amount is almost three times more than the total Market Capitalization of the entire U.S. Stock Market which is about $12 trillion.

 

This estimated future debt is approximately 235% of our GNP, a catastrophic event which has never even come close to occurring in the entire history of our country!

 

Source of data:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GNP

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/july/0721_bailout_tab1.shtml

http://www.world-exchanges.org/reports/annual-report/2008-wfe-annual-report

 

Plus:

 

There is one more item that should be added. There are about 100 million taxpayers in this country. If you divide the estimated $33 trillion debt by the 100 million taxpayers, we will each owe about $330 thousand in addition to our other obligations.

 

http://ustreas.gov/press/releases/docs/count.pdf

 

OK! Crunch these numbers if you can, and tell me whats going on! I sent you the sources. This will soon be on my site, but you are all very wecome to share this and your results with anyone. I would love some replys back! I need to know if your results match mine.

[Sisyphus]

$23.7 billion = every single mortgage defaulting and the value of all property dropping to zero. So, ridiculous. As long as we're doing "worst-case scenarios," imagine how expensive it would be if a meteor destroyed New York City!

[thomdd1959]

Wrong answer!

 

We are not talking about a worse case scenario, these are actual numbers that came from mostly U.S. government sources.

 

What does a meteor falling on NYC have to do with any of this?

 

Come on! This is very important to you! You can figure it out!

[Sisyphus]

"Maximum liability" is not a realistic net loss. For example, FDIC insures all private bank accounts to $250000. However, it hasn't spent that amount, nor will it ever, and it certainly hasn't been added to the national debt. Nor will every single Frannie or Freddie mortgage default, or all collatoral drop to zero value. The $23.7 trillion figure is the absolute worst case scenario of absolutely everything. Realistically it will be much, much less than that. A meteor destroying New York also "could happen," but I'm not including the losses in projections for GDP for next year.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Sisyphus

[GutZ]

It's a good thing you provided past trivial accomplishments that have really nothing to do with any of us.

 

At least now you can add making a fool out of yourself as a current accomplishment.

[Pangloss]

GutZ, stop that. It wasn't okay when you did it over here, and it isn't okay to do it here.

[GutZ]

My apologies. I won't do it anymore.

 

It's ridiculous though that some starts a conversation with an insult.

 

Hi my name is "whatever"

 

You guys are morons,

 

*insert topic*

 

No offense to the staff but people are place lies and insults continuously, where to the point where half the discussion is about expressing fallacies and topics being 6 pages of nothing.

 

I make one or two remarks that are out of line and I am the one being pointed out? I don't come here to read this sort of crap. I can get that anywhere else. I left reddit for that specific reason.

 

It's just people boosting their own egos. There is more proper discussion going on at the MMA forums I frequent, and that's just sad.

 

Out of respect to you guys I promise I won't resort to that sort of thing anymore *scouts honour* but when I or other people stop posting here, it won't be much of a mystery as to why, since there is no pay off for make respectful posts.

 

I change my mind I am jsut going to find another place! It's been fun. I just don't have the patience for it anymore, that's my downfall but meh...

 

You guys should though really make a new logo, it should boost sign up!

Edited August 11, 2009 by GutZ

[bascule]

There is one slight problem with this chart. The current National Debt numbers only include about $2 trillion of the total estimated $23.7 trillion dollar cost of the bailout.

 

So, in actuality we are looking at a National Debt of over $33 trillion sometime in the next year or two.

 

[...]

 

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/july/0721_bailout_tab1.shtml

 

Okay, going to this link:

 

Much of the government assistance is backed by collateral and Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the gross' date=' not net, exposure that the government could face.[/b']

 

Because of declining participation in short-term loan programs and because some infusions of money have been repaid, the maximum amount actually spent has declined to a current outstanding balance of $3 trillion, Barofsky said.

 

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the actual cash outlay to date of all the programs cited by Barofsky is actually less than $2 trillion and said the maximum exposure estimate "is inflated in a number of ways."

 

[...]

 

Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the maximum exposure that the government would face if all eligible applicants requested the maximum assistance at the same time. It does not account for the fees and other costs that some of these programs charge and for the collateral that many of the programs require that participants provide.

 

For instance, Barofsky assigns $6.8 trillion in potential exposure to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 federal home loan banks. However, losses of that magnitude would require every homeowner with a Fannie or Freddie guaranteed mortgage to default and the value of the homes drop to zero. And Barofsky concedes that the finance agency and Treasury are not entirely liable for Fannie and Freddie losses.

 

The total also includes $3.35 trillion for a Treasury program, announced in September, to back money market mutual funds. But the Treasury has capped its liability for that program at $50 billion.

 

In other words, the $23.7 trillion figure is a gross (excuse the pun) overestimate, sorry. Adding it into the US National Debt is just ludicrous.

[swansont]

Wrong answer!

 

We are not talking about a worse case scenario, these are actual numbers that came from mostly U.S. government sources.

 

No, right answer. From your own source (emphasis added):

 

"Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government's maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion

 

…

 

Much of the government assistance is backed by collateral and Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the gross, not net, exposure that the government could face."

 

You want to try again?